South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks 640
Med-trump writes "A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory in South Korea last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
How appropriate (Score:5, Informative)
"Mest" is the dutch word for "Manure".
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Informative)
because creationism is not based in any facts.
Fan death (Score:5, Informative)
Bad examples, anyway (Score:5, Informative)
Whichever side of the origins debate one subscribes to, good riddance to the horse and Archaeopteryx examples!
The typical horse progression still shown in many textbooks is oversimplified and incorrect [wikipedia.org]. The "horses" shown in the progression, particularly Eohippus, really belong on "branches" of a quite complex tree. I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
Likewise, the Archaeopteryx [wikipedia.org] is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Informative)
explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Someone doesn't understand geology very well, eh?
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Rocky_Mountains [wikipedia.org]
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Informative)
There goes South Korea's lead when it comes to science education.
While I am far from delighted to see creationist claptrap ooze any further out of the dark ages than it has to, it would be a dangerous underestimation to operate on the assumption that believing stupid things automatically makes people stupid(stupid people are quite adept and believing stupid things, and generally do; but once a smart person gets ahold of a stupid thing, they are far better equipped to cling to it through means other than pig-headed obstinacy).
It's perfectly possible(and has been done) for creationists(YECs, even) to do perfectly adequate science by means of some 'microevolution/macroevolution' flimflam, 'working out the implications of evolution as a contrafactual hypothesis', or simply not thinking about it much from Monday to Friday and thinking the opposite on Sundays. In areas of science that aren't biological, of course, it's even easier, and engineering is practically like home(not that engineers need to believe in intelligent design; but the belief that complex systems were intelligently designed isn't exactly crippling when your job is intelligently designing complex systems...)
Unfortunately, when it gets to the point that the textbook wars are being lost, that often is a sign that Cletus the slack-jawed yokel has grabbed the reigns; but one cannot simply depend on a self-correction induced by science falling apart thereafter.
(Incidentally, this also isn't wildly surprising. South Korea has a surprisingly strong Team Jesus contingent; best known for punching well about its weight, per capita, in terms of sending out missionaries to assorted scenic and/or hostile locales.)
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Informative)
Even if there are cellular processes that could not have evolved into existence (which I doubt, and saying "we don't know how it happened isn't going to be enough to convince me), that wouldn't disprove evolution. It would perhaps disprove abiogenesis, which is a different though related field regarding the origins of life as opposed to evolution which discusses the diversity of life. Even if we found an ancient satellite orbiting the moon containing video of aliens landing on primordial earth, coding up some germs in a DNA synthesizer and letting them loose on the sterile rock it still wouldn't disprove evolution. Evolution is about what comes afterwards, it's about how you go from microscopic, undifferentiated single cell organisms to the staggering complexity that is life on earth.
Re:The true nature of intelligence (Score:2, Informative)
Anyone intelligent considers competing theories side by side until one is proved. Any good theory should be able to stand on its own merit.
The fact that creationists are apparently so threatened by the theory of evolution as to conduct radical acts of censorship is a clear indicator even they secretly acknowledge that evolution theory has substance.
You're trying to claim the intellectual high ground while spouting off a fallacious argument that the only reason they're disputing you is because they secretly acknowledge your point? "Anyone intelligent" knows that's a logical fallacy, and therefore a completely and unquestionably invalid argument - not to mention incredibly hypocritical. And the idea that only people with low IQs can be unreasonable? That's hilarious.
PS - "Whose" is the possessive, "who's" is "who is".
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Informative)
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
The typical response of a creationist is to demand extraordinary levels of evidence especially when challenged about their lack of evidence. Anthropogically we know where different peoples lived based on artifacts. We can document generally where the Hebrews lived in ancient Egypt based on buried buildings, pottery etc. But to use your level of proof, I could demand the names and addresses of every single Jew complete with family history and skeletal remains or I contend that the Bible is lying that Jews lived in ancient Egypt.
Second of all, the fossil record has many, many specimens that support macro evolution. There are gaps but the general premise is sound. I suspect that you have never actually researched this.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
This statement shows a complete ignorance of geology and plate tectonics that I don't know where to begin. First of all, every point on the Earth does not go under the same geologic process. A point under a mile of ocean does not experience the same geologic forces as under a mile of glacier or a point in a desert. Second tectonic forces vary like subduction forces different points under different layers or pushes a point to be a mountain.
Re:Now watch... (Score:5, Informative)
Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though
Surely you were thinking of octopuses. Nautilus have a very simple pin-hole type eye. Octopuses on the other hand have complex eyes very much like ours, but better: they don't have a blind spot because nerve fibers are behind the retina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye [wikipedia.org]
Re:Obligatory question (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Hell, evolution on a microscopic scale has even been observed in labs. Why do you think we have to keep producing so many new antibiotics? Because bacteria keeps *evolving*.
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:4, Informative)
I wonder if this is related to one of the wealthiest people in Korea [wikipedia.org]. (And that therefore we are possibly supporting this cause of mis-education by eating sushi [chicagotribune.com].
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Informative)
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
Re:Obligatory question (Score:5, Informative)
There's no such thing as "macro evolution". "Macro evolution" is a buzzword that's used by creationists who, when given examples of evolution that have been observed, say "that doesn't count because it's not macro evolution". Since the only people determining whether something is macro evolution are the creationists, they can use that excuse to explain away every example.
Re:The true nature of intelligence (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:5, Informative)
Um, yes. Eminently. Proven, in fact. Already done.
That life evolved from simpler forms is not a theory. It is a dead-on fact. The "from natural selection" part is theoretical. The "evolution" part is observed a million times over in the fossil record, the geologic record, the cosmological record, etcetera. The only people who dispute that life started as simple microorganisms and evolved to larger forms are, well, stupid. I don't give passes for ignorance anymore . . .
Well, you just proved to me that you don't know what a theory is. Theories can be confirmed, or falsified. A theory is not worth anything if it is not falsifiable (i.e., cannot be tested). A theory that is repeatedly confirmed enters a realm of acceptance where it is rarely challenged because challenges always fail. Relativity is a theory. It has been confirmed many times, and is now integral to our lives vis-a-vis such things as nuclear power, and bombs, and GPS systems.
Theories are useful because they are predictive. The theory of evolution predicted for example, a "particulate means of genetic transmission," which appeared decades later as DNA. Theory confirmed.
On the other hand, the myth that God just waved his hand and did it all predicts nothing useful, cannot be falsified, cannot be tested.
So sad that science education has fallen so far. We live in a world that utterly depends on our understanding of these things, and as is painfully obvious by your Disneyland comprehension of how science works, we are in danger of having a world run by buck-toothed rubes whose intellect is operating at the Larry the Cable Guy level, trying to comprehend and maintain systems requiring far more intellectual horsepower than they can manage. Disaster is certain.
Re:Wow. Just wow. (Score:4, Informative)
The bible is horse shit, as are all other religious books. There is no god.
I used to think of S.Korea has being a smart country... I may have to rethink that.
Religious people should all be locked up for delusional insanity.